Well, sure. And to elaborate on point one, save on hosting fees by taking your website offline.
The proposed solutions to the RSS volume problem in the article sound more like a throwback to Usenet than those involved would have the professional pride to admit.
It reads to me like the healthiest approach to the problems in RSS is not to offload the burden to centralized services - this is the internet, i think - but to stop treating RSS as a sideline/ideology (cf Dave Winer) and begin treating it as a platform or protocol with a standards committee, and formalize how to deal with clients that misbehave. Or write better servers.
I thought one of the goals of RSS was to reduce the transmission volume of a blog by piping out only relevant changes when appropriate, and reduce the bulk data transfers that occur every time somebody loads the site again on the off chance that a couple kb of text has been added.
no subject
The proposed solutions to the RSS volume problem in the article sound more like a throwback to Usenet than those involved would have the professional pride to admit.
It reads to me like the healthiest approach to the problems in RSS is not to offload the burden to centralized services - this is the internet, i think - but to stop treating RSS as a sideline/ideology (cf Dave Winer) and begin treating it as a platform or protocol with a standards committee, and formalize how to deal with clients that misbehave. Or write better servers.
I thought one of the goals of RSS was to reduce the transmission volume of a blog by piping out only relevant changes when appropriate, and reduce the bulk data transfers that occur every time somebody loads the site again on the off chance that a couple kb of text has been added.